Skip to main content

It isn’t all a bed of roses, trying to be a dictator.

Jeeves and Wooster
3.5: Hot Off the Press 
(aka Sir Watkyn’s Memoirs)

There's some serious thieving going on from Blandings Castle in this episode. Albeit, one could argue that, by using a very early Wooster short story revolving around the same subject, it's fair game to get the drop on the account of Sir Galahad Threepwood's memoirs that formed the backbone of probably the best known Blandings novels, Summer Lightning and Heavy Weather.


Bertie WoosterWho's playing Mike in this merry melange of fun and topicality?
Stiffy BingConstable Oates.

Still, it never quite rings true to the starchiness of Sir Watkyn's character – former magistrate and justice of the peace – that he should engage in anything so scurrilous as spilling the beans on those he has encountered over the years. The plot just about stands up to this assault, with Bertie inveigled into stealing the manuscript by Madeline Basset and his betrothed, Florence Craye (Fiona Gillies), who wish to prevent publication. 


Likewise, you can see how transposing some of the elements from Deverill Hall (The Mating Season) to Totleigh Towers works (Bartholomew substituting for Sam, Stiffy for Corky and Oates – Steve Harwood as the second of three actors in the role – for Dobbs are perfect fits). It does, however, have the side effect of making Gussie appear something of a wannabe lothario by giving him back-to-back fancies (last episode for Gertrude and here for Stiffy).


SpodeNever do that again, Fink-Nottle!

Still, this is quality Gussie material, impressed as he is upon a Pat and Mike sketch in the town hall concert. When Oates drops out, Gussie is squared up against Sir Roderick Spode and required to hit him with an umbrella as part of the comic business. There's no really good reason for Spode to show up here, except that he’s incredibly good value and John Turner's performance is incredibly good. He also features in an amusing attempt to break into Sir Watkyn's safe, in which Bertie arrives on the scene to find Spode already there:

SpodeSir Watkyn asked me to fetch some things for him.
Bertie WoosterWith a hammer?


It seems there are some juicy details on Sir Roderick in the book ("It isn't all a bed of roses, trying to be a dictator": "Why don't you give it up, then?") but naturally, things go pear-shaped and they both have to flee (diving through a window). 


Bertie WoosterOld Gussie seems to live only for excitement, Jeeves.

As we saw in 1.2: Tuppy and the Terrier, an amateur talent night is always a recipe for disaster. If this isn't quite up there with that occasion's vegetable throwing, we're witness to Stinker (a welcome return from Simon Treeves; he essayed the role throughout the series) singing "A Hunting We Will Go" to much applause, despite Bertie's uneasiness ("Fruit will be thrown"). The crowd response gives him the confidence to take Stiffy's hand in marriage from Sir Watkyn, rather than ask for it.


StiffyWhere on Earth did you go to school?
Bertie WoosterEton, and we didn’t do safecracking.

Gussie's only in the talent show because of Stiffy, who refuses to release him until he's done as he's told. Ah yes: the new Stiffy. Easily the best is Charlotte Attenborough, who would return for the last season. Amanda Harris is serviceable, but she lacks a sense of playfulness Attenborough brought to the part. 


As for Gussie, he not only incurs the wrath of Spode but must endure Oates bearing down on him when he retrieves Stiffy’s incarcerated dog, the aforementioned Bartholomew. "I'd never give you any sort of odds for Gussie as a sprinter on the flat" observes Bertie, who has to eat his words, only for Gussie to foolishly "escape" up a tree; as a solution, Jeeves boshes Oates on the head. Gussie returns to Madeline, of course, citing the need for someone less exciting.


Lady FlorenceI will never marry you if those memoirs are published.

Madeline doesn't ask Gussie to rob the safe, on the grounds that "Augustus isn't a man of action like you" (he’s a man of intellect). She also notes that "It's only a little safe". The strongest pressure on Bertie comes from Lady Florence Cray, however. She needs to be Sir Watykn's niece for the story work, so that's who she is (she's the daughter of Lord Worplesdon in the short story, who will eventually marry Aunt Agatha and so become Bertie's Uncle Percy)Jeeves in Charge is the story of Jeeves' first encounter with his master, so most of those formative elements are inevitably absent. However, the basic structure of Bertie stealing the parcel bound for the publisher, secreting it in his room, Jeeves whisking it away before his room is searched, then sending it to the publisher, thus incurring Florence's wrath, is followed fairly scrupulously. Bertie does not fire Jeeves here as a consequence of the latter expressing his view of the unsuitability of their union, although he says he will need to think very seriously about his future; he realises the near miss he had when he hears her remonstrating non-abstemious servants and mentioning the Theosophical Society. Wodehouse clearly had enough of a thing about Theosophists to mention them quite regularly, possibly because his older brother tutored Krishnamurti. 


Bertie WoosterYou don't disapprove?
JeevesIt's hardly my place to say.
Bertie WoosterWell, I know it's hardly your place to say, Jeeves. That doesn't usually stop you.

Jeeves isn't, of course, wrong about Florence, and he flourishes some particularly withering put downs of his master on this occasion. These include the latter running through a new tune Nagasaki on the piano ("Is that wise, sir, so soon after a heavy meal?"), his view on Strength Through Willpower (he put it by Bertie's bedside table, considering it looked like "an excellent remedy for insomnia") and his sarcasm regarding Bertie trying to improve his mind ("That scarcely seems possible"). Then there’s his view on Nagasaki itself:

JeevesExtremely… invigorating, sir.
Bertie WoosterMakes you want to get up and bally well have run round the park.
JeevesMy feelings precisely, sir.


Jeeves also refuses to steal the manuscript for Bertie ("You’re a hard man, Jeeves": "But a free one, sir, and it is my ambition to remain in that state"), although he seems happy enough handling stolen goods later. And assaulting Oates, which could easily have landed him in stir. A lively episode, then, one that mostly manages to make good on its mish-mash of plotting and recast characters.


One aspect of the novel that doesn't make the episode is Bertie's contribution to the talent show. I hadn't realised Wodehouse had such a feud with AA Milne, principally on account of his former friend becoming a severe critic due to Wodehouse's wartime record (hence Bertie’s disdain of "Christopher Robin going hopitty hop" in The Mating Season).



Sources
The Mating Season
Jeeves Takes Charge (Chapter 1 of Carry On, Jeeves)


Recurring Characters:

Sir Watkyn Bassett (1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5)
Madeline Basset (1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5)
Gussie Fink-Nottle (1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5)
Sir Roderick Spode (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)
Rev H P “Stinker” Pinker (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)
Stephanie “Stiffy” Byng (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)
Constable Oates (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)











Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…